Quote of the day

On being asked at FMQs when he will next meet the Prime Minister, Mr Salmond replied somewhat ruefully:

"He never phones me; he never writes..."

A good idea

Matthew Parris makes a helpful suggestion:

In my continued quest to make the contest for the deputy leadership of the Labour Party interesting, may I suggest a Big Brother House in which Hazel, Peter, Hilary, Harriet, Jon and Alan will be confined for the next month?
We can watch them try to bond (sex would be, mercifully, unlikely), drink too much, gossip and bitch about each other; and we can see who is the second to be ostracised by the group (Peter Hain would be the first). We, the audience, can play our interactive part, while the light, matey voice doing the round-ups would be Tony Blair’s.
I can see it now. Hazel tap-dancing round a pile of lager cans; Peter blow-drying on the sun bed; Alan strumming his guitar and boring the housemates with his Seventies discographies; Jon reading socialist tracts with furrowed brow; Hilary organising a communal folk-based singsong and a daily good deed for each housemate; and Harriet alone in the corner with a bottle of alcopop, repeating in evermore Estuarial tones: “I’m just a working-class girl, me.”
The deep, burred voice of Big Brother will be Gordon Brown.

Blogroll

I have added Councillor Bellgrove Belle. Well worth a read.

Welcome to the real world

Look, it's just a coincidence. One of these unhappy juxtapositions that occur from time to time. The Scotsman reports:

Mr Salmond has "deep misgivings" about the £600 million Edinburgh tram scheme and this is likely to be one of the first victims of the new government's transport agenda.
At the same time, the Executive's new transport minister, Stewart Stevenson, has announced plans to dual the A9 from Perth to Inverness at the same cost, £600 million. The road runs through three SNP constituencies.

It is deeply unfair to suggest that, for base political reasons, the SNP Government would favour one transport scheme over another. (And, in any case, it is the kind of thing that Labour has been doing in the West of Scotland since the year dot.)

How to make Ministers look like idiots

Here and here.

They toil not, neither do they spin - and they are certainly not decorative

It may have been the holiday weekend, but Mr Swinney was not being idle. According to today's Executive press release:

At the weekend Mr Swinney met senior Executives at Standard Life, representatives of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and visited the Stirling-Alloa Kincardine railway project.
At Stirling Castle he had a day of meetings with key economic and public sector interests.

Furthermore, according to The Herald yesterday (here), the First Minister gave a briefing at Bute House to selected journalists.

But the Executive was officially on holiday so there were no press releases over the weekend. If I were Mr Salmond or Mr Swinney, I would be strongly tempted to put a bomb under the lazy sods in the Executive's press office.

Political correctness gone rural

I have learned a new word today. I found it - surprisingly - in the agricultural section of The Scotsman here:

There are now more employees of the Stirling-based body than there are full-time shepherds or dairy herdspersons in Scotland.

I suppose that this is the politically correct version of a milkmaid. I guess that they will need to update the Aesop's fable so that it is entitled 'The dairy herdsperson and his or her pail'.

After all, some of you need looking after ...

The Daily Mash explains:

EVERYTHING will carry a government warning label, under plans to prevent anything from happening, the Department of Health has announced...
Public health minister Caroline Flint said: "This announcement follows an extensive public consultation exercise.
"More than 1400 people managed to seriously injure themselves with the consultation document. It should have carried a warning label."
She added: "This is not about the government trying to nanny people.
"We simply want to tie their shoelaces, tidy their hair, ensure they have a good breakfast and then threaten them with a £60 fine unless they brush their teeth."

You know it makes sense.

But do they have anything to think with?

Ah yes, thinking time. Our parliamentarians don't get enough of it. No point in having a thinking pod if you don't get time to sit in it. The Herald reports:

MSPs need more time to make use of Holyrood's famous "think pods", among a range of changes recommended for the way they work in the third session of the Scottish Parliament.
They are being told they should tackle fewer pieces of legislation, and take more time to do so properly, while dedicating more hours to review laws already passed. A review of the role of MSPs draws on in-depth interviews with 15 of them from across the party range, carried out by the Scottish Council Foundation (SCF).

Of course, the MSPs would be able to think more if they did not have to spend so much time working. One and a half days of plenary parliamentary sessions per week is onerous, especially when it is supplemented by another half-day spent in committee. Then there are all those constituency surgeries, at least for those who have constituencies.

And they only get two months off in summer, with another fortnight at Christmas as well as at Easter. And then there is the schools week in October.

Is it any wonder the poor dears are always exhausted?

A fishy story

For the foreseeable future, it may not be much fun being a civil servant in the Executive's fisheries division. The Herald shows which way the wind is blowing:

Scotland's new fishing minister promised the industry they will have a voice in key decisions both at home and abroad during his first official engagement yesterday.
Richard Lochhead, cabinet secretary for the environment, told delegates at the Fish 2007 Exhibition in Glasgow that fishing would be a priority for the new SNP executive.
Mr Lochhead said he would be seeking the views of fishing sectors and giving the industry participation in talks.

Far be it from me to suggest that Ministers are in the fishermen's pockets or that they will not take decisions in the longer-term interests of the industry, but it is worth noting that Mr Lochhead (Moray) and Mr Salmond (Gordon/Banff and Buchan), not to mention Mr Stewart Stevenson (Banff and Buchan), the grandly titled Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate, all have a significant constituency interest. I am sure that our new ministers will not blindly ensure that Scottish Executive policies for the fishing industry slavishly follow the dictates of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation.

Economists may wish to note that the economic valued added of the Scottish fishing industry is slightly less than that of the Scottish sausage industry, although the former commands rather more attention from politicians, civil servants and the media.

Jumping the gun

The Scotsman gets it wrong:

'It was 40 years ago today, Sergeant Pepper taught the band to play...'

No, it wasn't. Sergeant Pepper was not released until 1 June 1967.

Pots and kettles

His theme of 'joined-up government' allows Eddie Frizzell, the ex-head of the Executive's Enterprise Department, scope in The Scotsman to take sideswipes at his former Ministerial masters:

It must be hoped the new administration will, unlike its predecessor, understand the efficiency downside to a programme for government with more than 450 commitments, coupled to a monitoring regime so intense it often seemed to those at the delivery coalface that more people were reporting and checking on the business than were actually doing it. Perhaps the new slimmer cabinet will not regard poring over a 100-page monitoring report every few months as an appropriate use of its time.
Accountability is essential, but performance-management systems need to be proportionate. This requires trust between ministers and officials, and between managers and staff. It is to be hoped incoming ministers will not carry with them, in relation to their officials, the baggage of suspicion, resentment, and distrust which - Donald Dewar apart - marked much of the incoming 1999 administration, and did not quite go away during the following eight years.

Ah, that baggage of suspicion, resentment and distrust that never quite went away. Do you suppose that had anything to do with the attitude of senior civil servants? And was it really Ministers who imposed and maintained that onerous monitoring regime?

As before, ministers will have at their disposal motivated people eager to run with the ball and keen to see them succeed. What is needed now is a new relationship between them and their officials, working together for the good of Scotland. A relationship based on mutual trust, reciprocal loyalty and respect, and one in which ministers value face-to-face engagement with those whose support they need.
The prospect of such engagement, commonplace in Whitehall, was one of Scottish civil servants' greatest expectations of devolution. With ministers in Scotland seven days a week, it was hoped that, after decades of government by remote access, a closer working relationship could be forged. This hope was quickly dashed and, as time passed, it became clear that (with some exceptions) ministers' priorities did not include making sufficient space for engagement with their departments.

So Ministers did not engage with their departments. We can - of course - accept that Ministers are totally at fault in this but we might also ask if departments, and particularly senior civil servants, engaged with Ministers. Or did heads of department spend their time muttering on the sidelines about the quality of Ministers and bemoaning the presence of 129 politicians at Holyrood, while failing to lead or improve the ramshackle regime that the Executive has become?

Formality and informality

Watching the Scottish parliament this afternoon, it became clear that the conventions of address are all over the shop. At one stage, the First Minister was addressing backbenchers by their first names: Kenny this and Margo that. It needs to be sorted out.

Westminster takes formality too far. But it does offer the clear understanding that MPs and Ministers do not address each other directly. Thus, for example, questions are formally directed to the Speaker ('Will the Prime Minister list his engagements etc') and Ministerial answers are similarly addressed ('The hon Member is talking a lot of tosh etc'). This seems to me to be sensible. Where Westminster goes too far is with all this 'hon Member for Castorbridge' stuff as it is not permitted to refer to MPs by their names (unless you are the Speaker). Equally absurd are the references to hon and learned Members (QCs), the hon and gallant Members (ex-officers in the armed services) and rt hon Members (privy counsellors).

But Holyrood cannot make its mind up. Most MSPs begin by addressing the Presiding Officer but quickly relapse into addressing Ministers or their opponents directly. Nor do they restrict themselves to Mr or Ms So-and-so. As I have noted, the First Minister addressed at least two MSPs by their first names; he also referred on at least two occasions to 'Jack McConnell'. He also referred to one MSP as 'the Member for Glasgow'. This is not a criticism of Mr Salmond - all the MSPs are in the same muddle. And it seems rather too informal for MSPs to be referred to by first names.

At the risk of being an old fart, I recommend that Presiding Officer Fergusson puts his foot down and insists that all speeches and remarks in parliament should be addressed directly to him. If members are referred to, then they should be Mr or Ms Bloggs, not Joe or Jane.

Respec', bro!

Is Ruth Kelly just unlucky?

I am not sure what Opus Dei's position is in relation to luck. But, once again, Ms Kelly carries the can for another bout of Government incompetence. The Guardian - not a newspaper decidedly unsympathetic to New Labour - reports:

All through their long, tortured delivery, home information packs have appeared a policy good in intention but bad in handling. Critics allege that ministers have been unwilling to consult or explain themselves, forcing through a set policy. Yesterday afternoon, even as Ruth Kelly bowed to her opponents, she demonstrated the justification of their grievances, managing to be both summary and vague. Just eight days before the launch of a policy that would affect every homeowner and would-be homeowner in England and Wales, Ms Kelly decided to mothball the entire thing. Why? Like a pupil with late homework, her explanations multiplied and got more complex as she went along. First there was a judicial review that had been lodged by the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors. Yet she admitted she had known about the judge's order since last Thursday. Why not come to the Commons sooner? No answer. Then Ms Kelly admitted there were not enough fully certified assessors to provide the energy performance certificates that are a core part of the packs. The shortage, in fact, amounts to just under 2,000 assessors. Ms Kelly would have known of this bottleneck long ago. Why wait until now? No answer.

As some of us will recall, Ms Kelly as Education Secretary was also involved in that business about sex offenders in schools. Then there was the proposed exemption of churches in relation to adoption by single sex couples. But we shouldn't necessarily blame her for switching her son to a private school. You can read up on Ms Kelly's travails here.

Then there is that voice. As Mr Hoggart puts it:

You can tell when Ms Kelly is under stress, because her curiously rural vowels become stronger. "Oid have thought that oil soides would agree..." she said at one point.

The poor girl has worked so hard to eliminate any trace of a Northern Irish accent that she now sounds rather like a Cornish speaking clock. Either that or it's the barbed wire garter.

Maybe that first visit wasn't quite such a good idea?

There was a time (before 3 May) when this story might have drawn a political reaction. After all, it appears to involve the stripping out of Scottish assets (tangible or intangible) with control passing from Scottish to international hands. I can imagine what the old SNP might have made of it. The Herald reports:

ScottishPower's renewable energy division is to be hived off and incorporated into a beefed-up subsidiary of the utility's new owner, Iberdrola, under funding plans revealed by the Spanish company yesterday.
Bilbao-based Iberdrola said it intended to restructure its renewables business, incorporating all its renewable energy-related units in Europe into its Iberenova subsidiary.

Of course, it is now more difficult to criticise Iberdrola, as they are the First Minister's chums, having hosted his first official engagement. But who will now speak up for Scotland?

The way the laverbread crumbles

If our lot of politicians are unduly averse to any kind of negotiations among the parties, their Welsh counterparts seem to be unduly addicted to talking.

The largest party to emerge from the Welsh elections were Labour with 26 seats out of the total of 60. Discussions between Labour and the LibDems about coalition have been suspended, leaving Labour to discuss the options of support from Plaid. There does not seem to be the same level of hatred between Labour and nationalists as is the case in Scotland.

But, at the same time, Plaid, LibDems and the Tories are discussing the establishment of a rainbow coalition which would consign Labour to the opposition benches.

Time is passing, however, and if the National Assembly for Wales is to produce a First Minister by 30 May - as they must - they better get a move on.

Is it better to resolve, rather hurriedly, upon a minority government (not that the SNP had much choice) or to engage in exhaustive discussions seeking a stable coalition? The proof of the pudding will be in the eating ...

It's a hard life, being an MSP(?)

Our esteemed parliament appears to be a bit leary of getting down to work. Since the election on 3 May, it has met on:

9 May for the oath-taking which took a couple of hours, then immediately suspended itself until:

14 May, when it took another couple of hours to elect a presiding officer and two deputies;

16 May, when it took less than 90 minutes to elect a First Minister; and

17 May, when it took less than 40 minutes to elect the rest of the Ministers.

They are now expected to meet this Wednesday afternoon (23 May) and again on Thursday (24 May), some three weeks after the election. Foolish, I know, but somehow I expected them to get properly started rather sooner ...

And they wonder why we become cynical...

Well that didn't take long. So much for the open and honest dialogue he promised on Thursday.

The Guardian reports:

The House of Commons yesterday voted to exempt itself from its own Freedom of Information Act, ending the compulsory legal requirement for MPs to disclose their expenses and introducing further curbs on the release of already protected MPs' correspondence.
The legislation, passed by a majority of 71 and introduced by former Tory chief whip David Maclean, will now go to the Lords and could become law this year...
Mr Maclean was backed by a sizeable number of Labour MPs, who turned up to vote to cut short the debate and pass the legislation. These included 26 ministers and prominent supporters of Gordon Brown, including Ed Balls, the Treasury minister, and Jacqui Smith, chief whip.

Just to remind you of what our next Prime Minister said on Thursday:

He promised "a different type of politics - a more open and honest dialogue: frank about problems, candid about dilemmas never losing touch with the concerns of people". He also promised to draft a constitutional reform bill later this year aimed at "renewing our constitution".
Acknowledging that the public had yet to get to know him despite 14 years in frontline politics, he said: "I will always try to put your concerns and aspirations at the heart of what I do. I will work hard for you. This is who I am.
"To those who feel that the political system doesn't listen and doesn't care, to those who somehow feel powerless and have lost faith, to those who feel Westminster is a distant place and politics all too often a spectator sport, I will strive to earn your trust - to earn your trust not just in foreign policy, but in our schools and our hospitals and our public services and to respond to your concerns."

Contriving to hide information is unlikely to earn our trust.

Oh woe, oh woe, oh who cares?

Continuing lamentation on the part of the BBC over the loss of Neighbours. The Guardian reports:

For 21 years it has been a fixture in the BBC1 schedules, bringing viewers a daily homespun slice of Australian suburbia and making stars of the likes of Kylie Minogue, Jason Donovan and Natalie Imbruglia.
But yesterday it was announced that the BBC and Neighbours are good friends no longer, as the corporation waved goodbye to the Antipodean soap because it could no longer justify the asking price demanded by producer Fremantle.
BBC1 controller Peter Fincham said that it was a "sad day" for the channel, but it could not pay "the best part of £300m" to retain the soap, which has been snapped up by Five on a 10-year deal.

I'm afraid that my view is simple. Why import expensive Australian rubbish when you could make domestic rubbish much more cheaply?

The night of the slightly blunt chib

Here is Mr McConnell's shadow team. And Wendy's back.

The big surprise is who has been left out. So how has Tom McCabe upset the former First Minister? Has he been plotting already?

Among the others excluded are Lord Foulkes, Charlie Gordon and David Whitton, each of whom might have had a claim to front-bench status. I suppose that Malcolm Chisholm, Jackie Baillie and Frank McAveety were non-starters.

Mr McConnell will need to watch his back in future ...